Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Ernest Hendry, Jr. v. The Georgelas Group, Inc., 15-1161 (2015)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 15-1161 Visitors: 27
Filed: May 21, 2015
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-1161 ERNEST S. HENDRY, JR.; JUDITH V. HENDRY, Plaintiffs - Appellants, v. THE GEORGELAS GROUP, INC., a Corporation Chartered in the Commonwealth of Virginia in Business Under the Common Name and Style of Said Company; FRANCIS J. PELLAND, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior District Judge. (1:14-cv-01455-JCC-TCB) S
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-1161 ERNEST S. HENDRY, JR.; JUDITH V. HENDRY, Plaintiffs - Appellants, v. THE GEORGELAS GROUP, INC., a Corporation Chartered in the Commonwealth of Virginia in Business Under the Common Name and Style of Said Company; FRANCIS J. PELLAND, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior District Judge. (1:14-cv-01455-JCC-TCB) Submitted: May 19, 2015 Decided: May 21, 2015 Before NIEMEYER and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ernest S. Hendry, Jr., and Judith V. Hendry, Appellants Pro Se. Peter F. Axelrad, COUNCIL, BARADEL, KOSMERL & NOLAN, PA, Annapolis, Maryland; Robert Mccay Hardy, Carol Thomas Stone, JORDAN COYNE LLP, Fairfax, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Ernest S. Hendry, Jr., and Judith V. Hendry appeal the district court’s order dismissing their civil action on statute of limitations grounds. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. Hendry v. The Georgelas Group, Inc., No. 1:14-cv-01455- JCC-TCB (E.D. Va. Jan. 21, 2015). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 2
Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer